NO. 07-08 -038 2-CR; 07-08 -038 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 2, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ JEFFREY LY NN C OX, APPEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 64 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; NO . A1 5170- 0310, A15191- 0310; HO NO RA BLE R OBER T W . KI NK AID , J R. , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t J ef

frey Ly nn C ox

appeal s from the re v ocat ion of his co mmunity super v is ion for t he offenses o f forg er y and theft and the res ult ing concur re nt senten ces of two y ears o f confinement in a s tate jai l facil ity . Appel lan t' s a ttor ney has fil ed a cons oli dated br ief in compli ance w it h Anders v. C ali for nia , 386 U. S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 139 6, 18 L.E d.2d 493 (1 967) and In r

e Schul m an, 252 S.W .3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App . 200 8) and certif ies tha t the re are no non- friv olo us is sues to appeal

. Ag re ein g w it h appoi nted couns el’ s c oncl usi on th eSee T ex. Penal Cod e Ann . § 31. 21 (Ve rnon 200 3). 1 See Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 31.03 (V er non 200 7)

. 2 2 record fails to show anya rg uab ly merito rious issue th at cou ld supp ort the app eal, we af f irm the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ments.
I n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 3 , a p p e ll a n twa s c h a rg e d b y in d ic t m e n to f t h e o f fe n s e o f fo rg e ry. 1 In a separate O cto ber

2003 ind ictment, appel lan t was charg ed w it h the offense of theft. 2 On F ebr uar

y 23, 2004, pursuantto a pl ea ag re ement, appel lan t pl ead g uil ty as ch arg ed in each of t he ind ictments and, on Febr uar y 24, w as pla ced on deferre d ad ju dic ati on commun it y su p e rv is ion for a per iod of fiv e y ears for eac h c ause. Appel lan t’ s d eferred adju dicatio n w as con dition ed o n his com pliance w ith spe cif ied te rms an d con dition s. On M a rch 13, 20 06, the St ate f iled its f irst motio ns to revoke. By agreed ord ers, ap pe l l an t’ s c om mu ni ty

s up er v i s i on for e ac h c au s e w as mo di fi ed to i nc l ud e ad di ti on al t er ms and c ondi ti ons. I n J une 200 8, t he St ate filed i ts sec ond moti ons to rev oke, se tti ng forth sev eral v iol ati ons of t he ter ms and condi ti ons of ap pel lan t’ s deferred a d ju d ication communi ty

su per v is ion

. T h e al leg ed v iol ati ons inc lud ed al leg ati ons that appel lan t commi tted the o ffense of intenti onal ly , k now ing ly or reck les sl y

ca usi ng bodi ly

i nju ry to another on A pr il 15, 2008, admitted t o us ing al co h ol in Apr il 2008, fail ed to repor t as re q uired for the mont h of Dec ember 2007 and March 2008, failed to pay f ine s a nd fees a s required, failed to atte nd AA me etings as required, an d w illfu lly and knowi ngly

v iolate d hisTh e a ll eg ati on s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e S t a t e ’ s m o t i o n t o re v o k e a s t o a p p e l l a n t ’ s t h e ft 3 com mu nity supe rv ision w ere sub stan tially similar to t h o se in the mot ion pe rtaining to his forg er y offense w it h the exc epti on that the deli nq uent bala nce on his fine, cour t c ost s a nd restitut ion w ere dif

feren t and there w as no allegation th at ap pellan t w as de linquent o n his communi ty

su per v is ion fees. 3 cur few

. On September 5, 2008, thi s moti on w as heard by the cour t. Ap pel lan t pl ed ” tr ue” 3 to al l of the St ate’ s a ll eg ati ons for eac h c ause. Th e Sta te prese nte d the testim ony of app ellant ’s comm unity supervisi on o f f icer. Appel lan t t est i fi e d , a c know led g ing and ex pla ini ng the v iol ati on of the ter ms of hi s c ommunity super v is ion . After

hear ing the ev ide nce present ed and p u rsuantto appel lan t’ s p lea s o f “t ru e,” the tr ial co urt rev oked appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion and sent enced appel lan t to tw o y ears t o r un conc ur re ntl y in a sta te jai l facil ity of t he Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Justice, and o rdered h im to p ay court cost s, restitutio n, an d an y court ap poin ted atto rney’s fees. This appeal foll ow ed. Appel lan t' s a ppoi nted appel lat e c ounse l filed a cons oli dated moti on to w it hdraw and a c o nsol ida ted b ri ef in s uppor t pursuantto Anders v. California , 386 U .S. 738, 87 S. Ct

. 139 6, 18 L.Ed . 493 (1967 ), in w hich he certif ies tha t he has diligently rev iew ed th e record for eac h c ause and, in his professi onal opini on, under the cont ro ll ing auth or it ies and facts of these cas es, there i s n o rev ersi ble error or leg it imat e grounds upon w hic h a n on- friv olo us appeal ca n arg uabl y

be p re dic ated. T h e br ief di sc uss es the p ro cedural his tor y of the caus es and t he proceed ing s i n c onnecti on w it h the moti ons to rev oke. C ounse l als o not es one pote ntial issue upo n w hich error ma y lie but ha s ex plaine d w hy t h e argume nt lacks meri t. C ounse l has cer ti fied th at a copy

of the Anders

b r i e f a n d m o t io n t o wit h d ra w h a ve4

been s er v ed on appel lan t, and that couns el has adv is ed appell ant of his ri g ht t o rev iew the re cord and file a pro se respon se. Johns on v . St ate , 885 S.W .2d 641 , 645 (Tex.App .–W aco 1994, pet. re f'd). Byletter , t his C our t al so noti fied appe ll ant o f his oppor tuni ty to submi t a re spons e to the Anders br ief and moti on to w it hdraw f il ed byhis couns el. Ap pel lan t has not filed a respon se. In con formity w ith the stand ards set o ut by the United State s Supre me Court, w e w ill not r ule on t he motion to w it hdraw unti l w e hav e i ndependen tl y ex amined the re cord. Nichol s v . St ate , 954 S.W .2d 83, 86 (Tex.App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 7, no pet .). If thi s Court deter mines the a ppeal has mer it , w e w il l re mand i t t o the tr ial co urt for appoi ntment of new couns el. See S taff

or d v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App .19 91).
In hi s b ri ef, couns el notes a po tenti al is sue conc e rn in g t h e l eg al and factu al suffici ency

of the e v ide nce to suppor t the rev ocat ion s. At the rev ocat ion hear ing , app ell ant ple ad “ tr ue” to all of the S tate’ s a ll eg ati ons. A ple a of “ tr ue” to ev en on e a lle gat ion i n the Stat e’s moti on is suffici ent to suppo rt a jud g ment rev oki ng co mmunity su per v is ion

. Cole v. State, 578 S.W .2 d 1 2 7 , 128 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) ; Lewis v. Sta te, 195 S.W .3d 2 05, 2 09 (Te x . A p p . – S a n A n t o n i o 2 0 0 6 , p e t
. d e n i e d )

. W e a g re e t h e re i s n o a rg u a b l y m e r it or iou s g ro und for appeal on t his poi nt.

W e find als o no arg uabl y mer it or iou s p oin t may be rais e d wit h r e g ard to the p u n is h m e n ta s s e s s e d t o a p p e ll a n t
. T h e t ri a l c o u rta s s e s s e d p u n is h m e n tfo r a p p e ll a n ta ttwo y ears of conf inem ent , to run con currently, at a state jail facility. T his is a n accep tab le termThe offensesfor w hic h appel lan t pl ead g uil ty w ere sta te jai l feloni es puni shabl e by 4 confine ment in a sta te jai l facil ity for anyter m of not more tha n two y ears o r les s t han 180 days and a f ine no t to exceed $ 10, 000 . T e x . Pen al Code Ann. § 12.3 5 (Verno n 20 03); Tex . Pe nal C ode An n. § 31.03( 4) (A ) (V er non 200 7) ; T e x. Pe n a l Cod e Ann. § 32 .21( d) (V er non 200 3)

. Cou nsel sh all , w it hin fiv e days a fter t he opini on is handed dow n, s end hi s c li ent a 5 copy of the o pin ion and jud g ment, alo ng w it h not ific ati on of the defendant’ s r ig ht t o fil e a pr o s e peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew

. See Tex . R . Ap p. P . 48. 4.

5 w it hin the per mis si ble rang e. I t i s t he g eneral ru le that as lon g as a s entenc e i s w it hin the 4 proper rang e of puni shmen t, i t wil l not b e di stu rb ed on appeal

. Jacks on v . St ate, 680 S.W .2d 809 , 814 (Tex.Crim.App . 198 4). Our rev iew conv inc es us that appel lat e counsel conduct ed a compl ete rev iew of the record for each ca use. W e have also ma de a n inde pen den t examina tion o f the en tire record for eac h c ause to deter mine w hether there are anyarg uabl e grounds w hic h mi g ht s uppor t t he appeal . W e ag re e the records presentno a rg uabl y mer it or iou s g ro unds for rev iew

. W e g ra nt couns el' s mot ion to w it hdraw i n eac h c ause and affirm the j udg ments of the tr ial co urt. 5

Jam es T . Camp bell

Justice

Do not p ubl is h.